Talk:Harry Potter
This article needs to be from a in-universe perspective. I am making some changes. Book or Film? Will this be written in universe based on the novels or the films? For example, the story describes what happens in the books, and in the end you can have a section of "differences between the films and books" or something like that. Or vice versa. Thoughts? - Squishy_Vic (Send an Owl) :It should stay book specific when applicable. A separate article about the differences would be okay. John Reaves 01:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Why are most of the pictures from PoA? I find it awful that most pictures are from PoA. How about for Hermione her BEAUTIFUL pictures from GoF? Images I'm going to get some screencaps from the films for this article tomorrow. Anyone got any suggestions? -- [[User:Lost Soul|''' Lost Soul ]] talk 19:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC) The aspect ratio of the Harry as a baby picture is wrong. The screenshot probably comes from a DVD, which is anamorphic. The image should be streched by 33%.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.139.83.250 (talk • ) }| }|}}. Ads Well I could talk about this on this page only.I am amazed to see ads on every page of the Wiki. What are the doing here? All the previously running wiki projects are free from ads. Harry and the last Hocruxe This is the only place i could think of writing this idea so please tell me a better place and what you think of the theory: what if Harry was the Last Hocruxe. and whenever voldemort attacked baby harry trying to get rid of the prophecy he actually helped the prophecy by accidently making harry a hocruxe because maybe the prophecy says harry will sacrafice himself to kill voldemort. now i know that you have to take a soul to make hocruxe but maybe voldemort put the last part of his soul (the part that is keeping his body alive) into harry, so essentially voldemort's soul becomes one with harry's. So i think harry is going to destroy all the horcruxes and learn he has to die to stop voldemort.. now i would really like it if the book skipped to like two to five years later or something and ginny is pregnant that way harry dies with an heir, but i doubt that will happen. so let me know awhat you think.SilverSword 19:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Never Mind I found my own answer. User:71.176.172.222 20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC) and surrogate parent? The book doesn't say anything about Teddy Lupin coming to live with Harry. He merely sees him at the Kings Cross. After all, Teddy had his grandmother to take care of him, so I don't know if it should be mentioned that Harry was the surrogate parent, because that is merely speculation and not reality. I think these simple words should be removed unless someone can provide evidence that Teddy actually went and lived with the Potters. User:63.253.45.138 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC) refrences to the real world Can I please point out that as a Wiki were not allowed to have references to the real world (eg the titles of the books) in the main part of the article. As it is nearly every paragraph of this article starts with "In Harry Potter and the..." this needs to be sorted on nearly every article thank you.-KickAssJedi 08:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC) *Fixed per Harry Potter Wiki Policy. DarkJedi613 20:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC) wizards being related It was clearly stated in the last books that all wizarding families were related in some way or another. Potter is half-blood, so he should be related to most wizarding families anyway. But somehow, all family ties that should be there are non-existent and the only family he has, are a bunch of muggles. Can anyone clarify this? 84.86.175.238 19:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC) :Although all wizarding families may be related, that does not mean his direct family has survived at all. Saying all Wizarding familes are related is the same as saying all people in the world are related. Its true to an extent, but that doesn't mean you consider them all family. All it means is that at some point all the wizarding lines there are crossed, not that Harry has to have cousins or aunts and uncles. (P.S. Sign your talk edits.) -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Would it be better to simply list the Weasleys in general as relatives rather than each and every one of the dozens of individual Weasleys? Mafalda Hopkirk 18:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Salazar Slytherin In COS, Harry wonders about if he is related to Slytherin. In HBP, Marvolo Gaunt says he's related to the Peverells and Slytherin. That means Harry is somewhat related since he's related to Ignotus. Should Slytherin be in ancestor? Syugecin :He's not necessarily, their relatives could be on different sides of the family. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 01:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC) ::Well, but if he's related to the Peverells at all...the Peverell line has to start somewhere, and that would be the link. Hufflepuff Half-Giant 05:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC) :::Oh, I see I misunderstood the question and answer. Yeah, they aren't necessarily related. Hufflepuff Half-Giant 05:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC) ::::Yeah it's not said if Slytherin is related to the Peverell's at all. He could have married into part of the line but not necessarily mean being related to Harry.Dbones2009 19:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC) "Harry is also distantly related, on his father's side, to the Blacks, Malfoys, the Weasleys, the Longbottoms.." that's disturbing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.97.93.168 (talk • ) }| }|}}. Head Auror Unless I missed a recent interview which is very unlikely, I missed her saying the year he became head auror. Therefore, I changed it back to how it was without the date saying by 2017 he was Head Auror.Dbones2009 11:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC) :Wizard of the Month on http://www.jkrowling.com confirms he joined the Auror Department at the age of 17, and became the head in 2007. - Cavalier One 12:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC) ::Thank you...Dbones2009 15:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Book 1 I was rereading this, and when HRH lose 150 points, the Gryffindor Qudditch team turns on Harry. The rest of the team I understand, but was anyone else surprised the Weasley twins turned on him? Cubs Fan2007 05:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Sacrificial Protection Does J.K. Rowling actually say that the students were given such a protection due to Harry's attempted sacrifice? I don't think merely dying for someone, or dying trying to prevent someone else from dying qualifies. Dumbledore suggested that it also requires a very deep love, such as the love Lily had for Harry. As much as Harry cared for those fighting against the Death Eaters, I don't think that it was quite the same. Maybe for some of them, but certainly not all of them. If dying for someone protected the other person from similar slaughter, it would happen a lot, such as when Voldemort killed that family in Deathly Hallows in his search for Gregorovitch. Those children didn't get the protection, yet their mother died for them. Any dang way, I'm really just asking if Rowling has SAID there was a protection due to Harry's attempted sacrifice, or if it is something assumed: "Die for someone, they are protected." Hufflepuff Half-Giant 19:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Note on Recent Edit Just wanted to let anyone know who comes across the page in the next hour, I started a section on Draco Malfoy and his relationship with Harry, but can't finish it just now. I will return in about 20 minutes to finish it. Mafalda Hopkirk 21:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Phrasing and inappropriate terms With "good faith" in mind, my feelings are that in some cases, people have used inappropriate phrases some of these articles. For instance, in this article it lists Cho Chang as Harry's "love interest." I think this is bad and frankly sexist. Female characters have more value than just being love interests. Though I know Cho is a minor character, I feel it is disrespectful to the character, or at least the author, to discount a character as merely a "love interest." In another instance, such as the article on Perkins, someone put in his article that he's an "old deaf wizard" which is insensitive. I feel that personally as I'm partially deaf and I reworded it. Again i'm not trying to attack anyone for insensitivity, but we should be more mindful how we phrase things. In an encyclopedia, we should word things like we would word an article on ourselves, no? Mafalda Hopkirk 22:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC) :Describing someone as a "love interest" of Harry does not mean they have no value, etc. It simply means that Harry is in interested in having a relationship "beyond friends" with her. If it had said that "The only reason Cho is in the series is to serve as a love interest of Harry," then I would agree it needs to be rewritten. :With Perkins, I understand it is insensitive, I doubt the person who wrote it meant it to cause any hard feelings. Although if it is how JKR worded it then... -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Draco Citation for the JKR bit? Mafalda Hopkirk 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Possessions Should the four Founders' possessions (Slytherin's locket, Hufflepuff's Cup, Ravenclaw's diadem, and Gryffindor's Sword) really be considered Harry's possessions? The diadem and the cup, at least, are only in his possession long enough to destroy the horcruxes (and they're in Ron and Hermione's possession just as much as Harry's, for that matter). I don't see him keeping any of the items, except perhaps Gryffindor's Sword, but even that, I suspect, would be left at Hogwarts. Dumbledore left it to him (which was probably to draw Harry's attention to an item that could destroy horcruxes once the will was read out), but it's been said by others that it either belongs to Hogwarts or to the goblins. At the end of the series, Neville is holding it. None of them are possessions the same way the Invisibility Cloak or Number 12 Grimmauld Place are. Much of the information about them is repetitive as well, from the search for the horcruxes section. I don't think they should be included as his possessions. Oread 15:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC) :I completely agree - Mafalda Hopkirk 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC) ::So do I. However, a summary of Harry's affinity with Gryffindor's Sword may be appropriate, along with Dumbledore's wish for Harry to have it in his will. - [[User:Cavalier One|'''Cavalier One]](''Wizarding Wireless Network'') 00:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC) :::I removed the diadem, cup, and locket from that section, but I left a modified blurb about the Sword, including Dumbledore leaving it to Harry in his will. Oread 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Happy Birthday Harry Potter!--HallieryElizabeth 00:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Hermione I noticed the editor's note in the infobox about not adding her as a sister-in-law. But the way I undertand the concept, she's related to Harry through marriage, since their respective spouses are related. -- [[User:Cubs Fan2007|'Cubs Fan2007']] [[User talk:Cubs Fan2007|(Talk)]] 17:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC) :First just to have the link available: Harry Potter Wiki:Character infobox family guidelines. Anyway, an "in-law" is the direct family member of someone's spouse as far as I know. So...Hermione is Ginny's in-law but Hermione is Harry's wife's in-law, Hermione to Harry is going through two marriages -- thus not an in-law. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC) :: Just FYI, I've found online dictionaries that, in addition to the common definition, define "sister-in-law" as the wife of a spouse's brother: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sister-in-law, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sister-in-law, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sister-in-law -- [[User:Cubs Fan2007|'Cubs Fan2007']] [[User talk:Cubs Fan2007|(Talk)]] 19:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC) :::I knew you were going to come back and say that. I mean it can be added I suppose -- I personally don't really care. Not sure who added the comment. Just cite one of the dictionaries after it. Although in my opinion the whole list of family on this article is too long to start with. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 20:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Marauder's Map In Harry's succession boxes, an anon-IP changed the successor of the Marauder's Map to Harry' son James. But the way I understand it, James isn't the owner in the sense Harry is and the Marauders were; he only borrowed it. Should that be changed back? -- [[User:Cubs Fan2007|'Cubs Fan2007']] [[User talk:Cubs Fan2007|(Talk)]] 16:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC) :I don't remember ever seeing anything saying that Harry gave the map to James.-- 17:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC) ::I would say leave it. James steals it from Harry's desk, he becomes the new "owner" -- its not owner in the sense of the Elder Wand that has to be disarmed to get, etc. -- DarkJedi613 (Talk) 17:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC) :::Am I missing something here? James stole...what?-- 17:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)